Nutrition in hemodialysis patients previously on a supplemented very low protein diet

Nutrition in hemodialysis patients previously on a supplemented very low protein diet.BackgroundNutritional safety of protein-restricted diets in patients with chronic renal failure is controversial. In the present study, we have assessed the evolution of nutritional status after initiation of hemodialysis in patients previously treated by a supplemented very low protein diet (SVLPD).MethodsNutritional data were prospectively collected during the first year of hemodialysis from 15 consecutive patients treated with a SVLPD (0.3 g protein/kg/day supplemented with essential amino acids, calcium, iron, and vitamins) and compared to 15 age- and gender-matched end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients previously on a less-restricted diet (0.90 ± 0.21 g protein/kg/day) who started hemodialysis during the same period. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) was used to assess body composition at 0, 6, and 12 months. Hemodialysis prescriptions, biologic data and 3-day food records were collected every 3 months.ResultsProtein intake was higher than 1.2 g/kg/day in both groups as soon as 3 months after the start of hemodialysis. Albumin and prealbumin increased significantly during the first 6 months in all patients. Body mass index (BMI) increased in all patients (+0.97 ± 1.31 kg/m2; P < 0.001) reflecting a gain in fat mass in the overall population (+2.36 ± 2.94 kg/m2; P < 0.001) while lean body mass remained stable overall.ConclusionOnce on hemodialysis, SVLPD patients rapidly increased protein intake. Nutritional status improved in all patients, with a gain in fat mass in all, and a gain in lean body mass in SVLPD men only. These data indicate that treatment with a SVLPD prior to hemodialysis initiation is nutritionally safe

Clin Kidney J

Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBIs) remain a major cause of mortality in haemodialysis (HD) patients with central venous catheters (CVCs), especially because of the non-specific symptomatology and the delay in microbiological diagnosis with possible use of non-optimal empiric antibiotics. Moreover, empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics increase antibiotic resistance development. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of real-time polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) in suspected HD CRBIs compared with blood cultures. A blood sample for rt-PCR was collected simultaneously with each pair of blood cultures for suspected HD CRBI. The rt-PCR was performed on the whole blood, without any enrichment stage and with specific DNA primers: 16S (universal bacterial), spp., and . Each successive patient with a suspected HD CRBI in the HD centre of Bordeaux University Hospital was included. Performance tests were used to compare the result obtained in each rt-PCR assay with its corresponding routine blood culture. Eighty-four paired samples were collected and compared for 40 suspected HD CRBI events in 37 patients. Among these, 13 (32.5%) were diagnosed as HD CRBI. All rt-PCRs except (insufficient number of positive samples) showed high diagnostic performances within 3.5 h: 16S (sensitivity 100%, specificity 78%), spp. (sensitivity 100%, specificity 97%), (sensitivity 100%, specificity 99%). Based on the rt-PCR results, antibiotics could be more appropriately targeted, thus cutting anti-cocci Gram-positive therapy from 77% to 29%. The performance of rt-PCR in suspected HD CRBI events showed fast and high diagnostic accuracy. Its use would improve HD CRBI management with an antibiotic consumption decrease

Néphrologie & Thérapeutique

La population de patients traités par hémodialyse sur cathéter est fragile, à risque infectieux important. La bactériémie liée au cathéter d’hémodialyse est l’une des complications les plus graves, dont l’incidence augmente chaque année, en lien avec une hausse de l’utilisation des cathéters comme abord vasculaire. Cependant, le diagnostic clinique et microbiologique reste difficile. La mise en place de l’antibiothérapie probabiliste se base sur des recommandations anciennes qui préconisent d’associer une molécule visant le Staphylococcus aureus méticillino-résistant, ainsi qu’une bêtalactamine active sur P. aeruginosa, mais également d’adapter ce traitement probabiliste en réalisant un recueil microbiologique à l’échelle locale, ce qui est rarement réalisé. Dans notre centre d’hémodialyse du CHU de Bordeaux, une analyse de la répartition bactériologique des bactériémies liées au cathéter d’hémodialyse sur la période 2018–2020 a permis de proposer, en accord avec les infectiologues, un protocole d’antibiothérapie probabiliste adaptée. Cette démarche nous a permis de constater une incidence faible de méticillino-résistance des Staphylocoques, une incidence nulle de Staphylocoque après un délai de pose du cathéter de plus de 6 mois, aucun Pseudomonas multirésistant et un très faible pourcentage d’entérobactérie résistant aux céphalosporines. La mise à jour régulière de l’épidémiologie microbiologique des bactériémies liées aux cathéters d’hémodialyse, associée à un partenariat avec l’équipe d’infectiologie dans son centre d’hémodialyse, permettant une adaptation de l’antibiothérapie probabiliste, paraît avoir une bonne faisabilité et, à long terme, favoriser la préservation de l’écologie microbienne à l’échelle individuelle et collective pour la population de patients traités par hémodialyse.Patients in hemodialysis on central venous catheter as vascular access are at risk of infections. Catheter-related bloodstream infection is one of the most serious catheter-complications in hemodialysis patients. Its clinical and microbiological diagnosis is challenging. The implementation of empiric antibiotic therapy is based on old recommendations proposing the combination of a molecule targeting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and a betalactamin active on P. aeruginosa, and also adapting this probabilistic treatment by carrying out a microbiological register on a local scale, which is rarely done. In our hemodialysis center at Bordeaux University Hospital, an analysis of the microorganisms causing all catheter-related bloodstream infection over the period 2018–2020 enabled us to propose, in agreement with the infectious disease specialists, an adapted probabilistic antibiotic therapy protocol. This approach allowed us to observe a low incidence of meticillinoresistance of Staphylococcus. For catheters inserted more than 6 months ago, we observed no Staphylococcus, no multi-resistant Pseudomonas, and only 2% of Enterobacteria resistant to cephalosporins. A frequent updating of the microbiological epidemiology of catheter-related bloodstream infection, in partnership with the infectious diseases team in each hemodialysis center, allowing an adaptation of the probabilistic antibiotic therapy, and seems to have a good feasibility. This strategy might favor the preservation of microbial ecology on an individual and collective scale in maintenance hemodialysis patients

J Ren Nutr

In hemodialysis (HD) patients, malnutrition should be diagnosed by several assessment tools including a plasma albumin concentration of less than 3.8 g/dL or 3.5 g/dL using bromocresol green or immunonephelometry (IN), respectively. However, albumin measurement is not yet standardized and two alternative methods are also commonly used in laboratories: bromocresol purple (BCP) and immunoturbidimetry (IT). This study aimed to revisit the hypoalbuminemia thresholds for BCP and IT, in HD patients. Plasma albumin was measured by the four analytical methods during the monthly HD nutritional assessment of 103 prospectively included patients. Significant differences in albumin levels were observed in HD patients depending on the method used. Using BCP or IT with the cut-off at 3.5 g/dL (determined for the general population) we obtained 33% and 9.7% of false hypoalbuminemia in comparison to IN (mean bias of -0.4 g/dL and -0.065 g/dL, respectively). The best hypoalbuminemia threshold for BCP was 3.05 g/dL and 3.4 g/dL for IT. Twenty percent of HD patients were classified as malnourished when albumin was determined by IN. Similar rates were obtained using the new hypoalbuminemia cut-offs for BCP (18.5%) and IT (19.5%). To avoid nutritional misclassification of HD patients, we should adjust hypoalbuminemia thresholds when BCP or IT methods are used in laboratories

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundSparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis.MethodsPROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850.FindingsBetween Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals.InterpretationOver 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Sparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis. Methods PROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals. Interpretation Over 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function.</p